Forced Nursing Home Evictions Must Stop. AARP Foundation Is Helping Protect the Most Vulnerable. Learn How

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

141 Views
Message 1 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

patriciah559514 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 


There were demonstrations opposed to the statues and there were demonstrations in favor of them. They are not the issue. The issue is violent attacks on such demonstrators.


Those (the White Supremacist KKK) that were demonstrating in favor of keeping the statues were the ones who committed the "violent attacks", killing one woman and injuring dozens. Let's not forget that.


The subject is the right to demonstrate. No one has defended the guy in the car. Bringing that up is - cats, crickets, look over there, strawman - or whatever you guys (generic) are using these days.


The "mobs in the street" are your beloved KKK demonstrators. No "cats", "crickets", "look over there", or "strawmen", just the plain truth. But then Cons always have problems with the truth, especially Alt-Right ones.


Trey to follow the discussion rather than just typing and retyping your venom. There are issues decided by the courts whose decisions are then enforced by police authorities. Those trying to take the place of the courts and police are the "mobs in the street".


What does "trey" mean? 

 


"Try". Any thoughts on the topic - particularly the words of wisdom I have graciously offered?


When I locate those offered in that spirit, I will do so. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

176 Views
Message 2 of 270

 


rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


So when a white supremacist hate group like the KKK meets (as in C'ville), how come it doesn't "sound like balance" to you for others to protest the KKK and their racist hate rhetoric?


So I do not consider the actions of masked, armed mobs in the street with the sole purpose of denying another's free speech to be free speech.

 

On the other hand I support 100% antifa's right to get a permit and have a rally, town hall, talk-in, whatever.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says. When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


If a group or individual has a permit, invitation whatever to exercise their free speech (regardless of the content) and another group objects to it, I am all for settling the dispute in court. However, I do not support armed, masked mobs placing themselves in the place of the courts. Is that the "bunk that doesn't matter"?

 

And speaking of bunk - where have you seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech? Might that be your "bunk that doesn't matter"?


here we go back to c'ville.. where its proven the only shots fired were from the alt right, the alt right attacked a black man..etc etc. A true confederate wanting to re litigate the lost cause.


Please try to follow the conversation. Chas was claiming that I was trying to equate running someone down with a car with free speech.

 

That is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech".


yet you support the speech that leads to it. hey..how many protesters from the left got fired over this outing?

 

No - I support the Constitution and the Courts in determining what can and cannot be said. I do not support radical masked thugs to make those decisions, As to enforcement of those decisions, I support the police not, again, your masked thugs.

 

You, on the other hand, support the armed, masked thugs who place themselves over the Constitution. What could the reasons behind supporting these anarchists possible be other than bringing down our government?


 


The post demonstrating that not diddly squat is comprehended is both amusing and welcome...

 

Thanks for yet more slapstick political comedy...

 

To paraphrasemisquote Shakespeare's character, Puck -

 

"Lord, what fools these RWNJs be!"

 

 

Have pity for Melania - she hasn't yet got rid of that ugly fat.
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

183 Views
Message 3 of 270

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


So when a white supremacist hate group like the KKK meets (as in C'ville), how come it doesn't "sound like balance" to you for others to protest the KKK and their racist hate rhetoric?


So I do not consider the actions of masked, armed mobs in the street with the sole purpose of denying another's free speech to be free speech.

 

On the other hand I support 100% antifa's right to get a permit and have a rally, town hall, talk-in, whatever.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says. When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


If a group or individual has a permit, invitation whatever to exercise their free speech (regardless of the content) and another group objects to it, I am all for settling the dispute in court. However, I do not support armed, masked mobs placing themselves in the place of the courts. Is that the "bunk that doesn't matter"?

 

And speaking of bunk - where have you seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech? Might that be your "bunk that doesn't matter"?


here we go back to c'ville.. where its proven the only shots fired were from the alt right, the alt right attacked a black man..etc etc. A true confederate wanting to re litigate the lost cause.


Please try to follow the conversation. Chas was claiming that I was trying to equate running someone down with a car with free speech.

 

That is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech".


yet you support the speech that leads to it. hey..how many protesters from the left got fired over this outing?

 

No - I support the Constitution and the Courts in determining what can and cannot be said. I do not support radical masked thugs to make those decisions, As to enforcement of those decisions, I support the police not, again, your masked thugs.

 

You, on the other hand, support the armed, masked thugs who place themselves over the Constitution. What could the reasons behind supporting these anarchists possible be other than bringing down our government?


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

186 Views
Message 4 of 270

MIseker wrote:


What rk wont say is the hate speech ( his free speech) whipped some dorf into a frenzy and he decided for his duty he should ram some protestors ( and take their free speech away)  All the shots fired at that rallye were from the alt right. we discussed this to death on another thread, he was wroong, proven wrong, yet still persists.

 

What Miseker lies about is rk's comments about the "dorf". He'she'it also refuses to acknowledge the rk has not supported any shooting.

 

And lying by saying "he was wroong" has all the discussion value as PNG.

 

I suspect rk is PNG because he raises issues that the left is unable to logically refute.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

187 Views
Message 5 of 270

MIseker wrote:


that no mask law turned out to be quite handy for the ANTIFA to out your buddies. Its great when they employer, who doesnt have to recognize free speech, finds out what the employee is up to. Smart guys your alt right.

 

What "buddies" of mine were outed by no mask laws?

 

Any thoughts on antifa violating the law and getting away with it?

 

"My" alt-right?? You found the handbook for chas. Can you quote anything from it to justify your offensive statement?


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

200 Views
Message 6 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


So when a white supremacist hate group like the KKK meets (as in C'ville), how come it doesn't "sound like balance" to you for others to protest the KKK and their racist hate rhetoric?


So I do not consider the actions of masked, armed mobs in the street with the sole purpose of denying another's free speech to be free speech.

 

On the other hand I support 100% antifa's right to get a permit and have a rally, town hall, talk-in, whatever.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says. When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


If a group or individual has a permit, invitation whatever to exercise their free speech (regardless of the content) and another group objects to it, I am all for settling the dispute in court. However, I do not support armed, masked mobs placing themselves in the place of the courts. Is that the "bunk that doesn't matter"?

 

And speaking of bunk - where have you seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech? Might that be your "bunk that doesn't matter"?


here we go back to c'ville.. where its proven the only shots fired were from the alt right, the alt right attacked a black man..etc etc. A true confederate wanting to re litigate the lost cause.


Please try to follow the conversation. Chas was claiming that I was trying to equate running someone down with a car with free speech.

 

That is not "free speech", shooting is not "free speech", attacking a person is not "free speech".


yet you support the speech that leads to it. hey..how many protesters from the left got fired over this outing?

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

201 Views
Message 7 of 270

I'll believe Republicans really support free speech just as soon as they begin demanding we jail Der Trumper for encouraging his minions to assault peaceful protesters at his rallies.

 

Organizations that preach hate need to lose their access to public forums AND be held responsible for the violence their "fighting words" provoke.

 

Then we need to make it illegal to LIE on all our media, and require those found guilty of telling lies spend three times as long having the victims of their lies tell thetruth on the lying network/media.

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

202 Views
Message 8 of 270

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


So when a white supremacist hate group like the KKK meets (as in C'ville), how come it doesn't "sound like balance" to you for others to protest the KKK and their racist hate rhetoric?


So I do not consider the actions of masked, armed mobs in the street with the sole purpose of denying another's free speech to be free speech.

 

On the other hand I support 100% antifa's right to get a permit and have a rally, town hall, talk-in, whatever.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says. When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


If a group or individual has a permit, invitation whatever to exercise their free speech (regardless of the content) and another group objects to it, I am all for settling the dispute in court. However, I do not support armed, masked mobs placing themselves in the place of the courts. Is that the "bunk that doesn't matter"?

 

And speaking of bunk - where have you seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech? Might that be your "bunk that doesn't matter"?


Those protesting the KKK in C'ville had a permit, do you forget that? It seems that your armed KKK mobs  are the ones who placed themselves in place of the court by running their vehicle into those protesting them, killing one woman and injuring dozens.

 

I never said that I have "seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech", so that comment of yours is even more 'bunk'.


If anyone marches or demonstrates with a permit, they have my approval. However, I do not believe that physical attacks are permitted and masks are illegal in VA so I support neither.

 

Since there was no permit involved in the car attack, bringing it up is more of your "bunk".


NO, the guy that ran over those people and killed that woman didn't have a permit.

 

No bunk here, the KKK had a permit and those protesting the KKK had a permit also.


What rk wont say is the hate speech ( his free speech) whipped some dorf into a frenzy and he decided for his duty he should ram some protestors ( and take their free speech away)  All the shots fired at that rallye were from the alt right. we discussed this to death on another thread, he was wroong, proven wrong, yet still persists.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

204 Views
Message 9 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


So when a white supremacist hate group like the KKK meets (as in C'ville), how come it doesn't "sound like balance" to you for others to protest the KKK and their racist hate rhetoric?


So I do not consider the actions of masked, armed mobs in the street with the sole purpose of denying another's free speech to be free speech.

 

On the other hand I support 100% antifa's right to get a permit and have a rally, town hall, talk-in, whatever.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says. When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


If a group or individual has a permit, invitation whatever to exercise their free speech (regardless of the content) and another group objects to it, I am all for settling the dispute in court. However, I do not support armed, masked mobs placing themselves in the place of the courts. Is that the "bunk that doesn't matter"?

 

And speaking of bunk - where have you seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech? Might that be your "bunk that doesn't matter"?


Those protesting the KKK in C'ville had a permit, do you forget that? It seems that your armed KKK mobs  are the ones who placed themselves in place of the court by running their vehicle into those protesting them, killing one woman and injuring dozens.

 

I never said that I have "seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech", so that comment of yours is even more 'bunk'.


If anyone marches or demonstrates with a permit, they have my approval. However, I do not believe that physical attacks are permitted and masks are illegal in VA so I support neither.

 

Since there was no permit involved in the car attack, bringing it up is more of your "bunk".


that no mask law turned out to be quite handy for the ANTIFA to out your buddies. Its great when they employer, who doesnt have to recognize free speech, finds out what the employee is up to. Smart guys your alt right.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

204 Views
Message 10 of 270

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 


If they are "unwanted", they can speak outside in an empty park on public land. (hopefully in the middle of the winter)  They do have that Constitutional right.


Or they can be treated as citizens with rights, offered a room, auditorium, whatever and say whatever they are allowed to based on the Constitution and court rulings. Then people can come or not come, again, exercising their rights.


No one or no private institution has to let anyone speak on their property in order to treat that person "as citizens with rights". They don't have to "offer them a room, auditorium or whatever" to "treat them as citizens with rights".  Many of your suggestions and claims are so entirely bogus that they make me LOL !!!

 

Your KKK and White Supremacist friends can get a permit when necessary and speak on any public land that they desire to and then "people can come or not come, exercising their rights".


I have no KKK and White Supremacist friends and your suggestion is highly offensive. Part of me thinks I should be angry but my rational side tells me to pity you. Anyone who can't defend their positions in a discussion with anything more than that is truly a pathetic human being.

Report Inappropriate Content